I'm going to write this simple scenario in the hopes that Fran will see it and perhaps even "get it."

I think I see a UFO.

I tell all my neighbors what I saw, point to the sky (but it's gone now), and they tell their friends and relatives what I reported.

Fifty years pass. I'm now dead.

A historian wishes to make a finding on this issue.

He talks to many people and finds a "trail" back to an original neighbor I told about my sighting.

He determines from the trail, and from further information he found when he traced it that it seems to be RELIABLY TRUE: GetMeThere DID report seeing a UFO on such a day--and told many people about it.

What will be the report of the historian?

1) Fifty years ago, GetMeThere reported to many people that he saw a UFO?

Or

2) Fifty years ago, GetMeThere saw a UFO?

Of course, not only is it painfully obvious that the FACT is #1. It should ALSO be obvious, that without some sort of independent PHYSICAL evidence, that it could NEVER be stated as fact that I saw a UFO. To do so is to claim that one can know for a fact an event that happened in another's MIND. This is IMPOSSIBLE.

In the same way, it might be possible to claim as an historical fact that the disciples REPORTED to others that they saw jesus after his death (although I would argue even THAT to be questionable). It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be an ESTABLISHED FACT that the disciples SAW jesus after his death (even though it could IN FACT be true--it would be a truth that, nevertheless, others could never fairly claim to be a fact).

It's a problem having a debate with someone who can apparently not understand the above.

A resurrection? The probability of it actually happening is so low as to be near Zero, and you know damn well why. There is NO corroborating evidence of such a thing EVER happening, and NO evidence of the force that enables such an event. NONE - ZERO - NADA.

In a way, though, I think you're WRONG, and by being wrong you weaken OUR side of the debate.

I think there COULD be quite excellent historical evidence that the resurrection actually occurred. I've mentioned this before. When jesus was teleporting around Palestine and visiting with the disciples, he could have ALSO been teleporting around China and giving sermons, and North and South America giving sermons to the Indians, and telling them all about his resurrection. If reports were unearthed describing THAT it would, in fact, be quite suggestive evidence of a supernatural occurrence. If there were enough reports, with DETAILS, etc., etc., I myself would perhaps find them compelling, and would consider believing them.

To say that no evidence could demonstrate the supernatural event means that you dismiss even the possibility. To say that you ACCEPT the possibility, and that the evidence COULD exist--but DOESN'T, is a fairer position, and makes a rejection of the current evidence a fairer rejection.

I'm looking through HAL's post for where he said that no evidence of a force that enables ressurrection could ever come to light, and I'm not seeing it. He talks a lot about the utter lack of such evidence, but he in no way suggests - in that post, at least - that such evidence is impossible.

In a way, though, I think you're WRONG, and by being wrong you weaken OUR side of the debate.

So be it - but I've explained it in all my past posts very clearly. I stand by my position. If you want to read all my posts regarding this you are welcome to do so.

You make the point often that NO EVIDENCE has ever been shown of supernatural occurrences. It's an IMPORTANT POINT, and one that believers don't properly acknowledge. I'm only saying that I like to point out to believers that there easily COULD be such evidence--but it happens to be totally lacking. I think that believers too often take skeptics to mean to say that supernatural events are IMPOSSIBLE (which, strictly, they may be, because once they happen they aren't supernatural anymore--but you know what I mean).

I think believers let THEMSELVES off the hook too easily by never clearly acknowledging that there COULD and SHOULD be abundant evidence of supernatural events if their belief is to be justified. Instead, they act as though it should be EXPECTED that supernatural events would be "cloaked" or "unprovable."

I'm only saying that I like to point out to believers that there easily COULD be such evidence--but it happens to be totally lacking.

Getmethere, please read this post of mine, asking Fran to help me try to determine how evidence for the supernatural could be determined, for both atheists and theists (he blew it off of course), before jumping my case again -

I'm only saying that I like to point out to believers that there easily COULD be such evidence--but it happens to be totally lacking.

Getmethere, please read this post of mine, asking Fran to help me try to determine how evidence for the supernatural could be determined, for both atheists and theists (he blew it off of course), before jumping my case again -

I have read your link. I agree that supernatural effects should be measurable since, afterall, they ARE effects--something in the world is claimed to have changed in response to them.

What I am trying to bring to the fore is that there could also be HISTORICAL evidence which substantially supports reports of ancient supernatural events. I bring it up because it interests me--and I'm certainly not the first one to come up with this idea. If it was jesus' mission to come to earth and give his message to people, then he could EASILY have teleported all over earth after his resurrection, and given the message to everyone. Historical EVIDENCE of his message being in all cultures (with the right details, etc.) could serve as pretty substantial evidence of a supernatural event. Clearly, it was jesus' INTENTION to demonstrate supernatural events, and to demonstrate his resurrection. So it can't be argued that he wanted to HIDE supernatural events. Therefore, there's no good reason for him to NOT teleport around and leave evidence that could be FOREVER judged to be genuinely supernatural--even thousands of years later.

It's my impression that atheists of course DISMISS ancient claims of supernatural events ESPECIALLY (it's my habit, too) . Hearsay testimony over such a span of time could not be robust enough to substantiate supernatural events. But a supernatural RESULT, such as records from all cultures of visitations by jesus COULD establish the events to a reasonable likelihood. I think it should be up to BELIEVERS to ALSO acknowledge that there COULD in fact be evidence of ancient supernatural events, but there isn't. If one only looks at ancient records of "witness testimony" then that's equivalent to saying that there could NOT be evidence of supernatural events because--few would argue--two thousand year old witness testimony could probably never offer evidence that would satisfy many critics. By detailing a scenario as I have, one clearly acknowledges to believers that there COULD EASILY exist evidence of a supernatural resurrection of jesus, but the evidence isn't there. But that can only be done if one OFFERS a scenario in which the evidence could exist. Unless one offers that scenario, I think the implication is clear that one thinks it's IMPOSSIBLE to find ancient evidence of a supernatural event.

I think Fran should be made to explain why, since jesus clearly INTENDED for reports to be made of his resurrected body, that jesus didn't visit TENS OF THOUSANDS at least, including at least a trip to Rome. He could have hovered permanently in the sky above Jerusalem for forty days, instead of just hanging out with his boys. If he gave regular sermons in Jerusalem as a "resurrected body," floating through walls, etc., I'm quite sure that fact would have been independently chronicled by NUMEROUS ancient scribes. Fran should have to EXPLAIN why jesus apparently chose to HIDE what is supposed to be a REVELATION (a revealing).

He was apparently all too comfortable performing healings in front of crowds, and of making fish and wine for thousands. Why was he so stingy with his resurrection show--since, indeed, THAT would be the thing that could really get contemporaneous chroniclers excited enough to report on? Of course, the herd of zombies, darkness, and ground shaking should ALSO have been quite reportable--but EVERYBODY seems to very politely avoid that one

Actually it wouldn't (even under the spurious christian logic). There would still be LOTS of people who would dismiss it as crowd delusion or whatever (if it were just in Jerusalem--but lots of locals recording it AT THE TIME, in writing). But it would be true that a lot more people in the middle would have reason to find it plausible. And who knows, with such a buzz discussed for hundreds of years in the ancient world, Islam might not have gotten invented--thereby saving billions of souls.

I don't think "free will" can so easily get believers out of this particular one. Even with WORLDWIDE records, validated in the modern day, lots of people would claim simply that trade throughout the world was more advanced than we realized. But at the same time, believers could offer a MUCH stronger argument, and surely win more converts. Believers are out there offerring arguments to potential converts--so god must WANT that. A BETTER argument will win more converts--while at the same time allowing for free will to still offer a way out for the doomed non-believers.

The free will contingent wins the argument only with the weekly, big-face-in-the-sky sermons, with world wide coverage, and extending into modern times. Everyone WOULD convert then.

I'm only saying that I like to point out to believers that there easily COULD be such evidence--but it happens to be totally lacking.

Getmethere, please read this post of mine, asking Fran to help me try to determine how evidence for the supernatural could be determined, for both atheists and theists (he blew it off of course), before jumping my case again -

Zero evidence for something does not mean it did not happen. My glance just flicked out the window: this happened, but there is no way I can prove it. Just because something cannot be conclusively proven does not mean it did not happen.

So we then have to look at balance of probabilities. We all know about windows. We all know about eyes. We all know that we sometimes glance away from our PCs. And hence the "Anf looked out the window" event becomes eminently plausible, even if not proven, and there is no issue with taking it as fact.

Where an event is postulated with no conclusive evidence, we must therefore look at whether similar things have happened - whether such an event becomes reasonable to countenance. Fran's suggestion is that "a man came back from the dead - from the really, trully, definitely dead". And there is no comparable event that we can look at to say "well, we know for sure it happened here, so maybe it DID happen there".

So we are left with a possible singular event that goes AGAINST every other comparable case - the billions of times people were really, truly, definitely dead, but did NOT come back to life. So unless there is verifiable evidence that the event happened, in the light of the weight of evidence against (the "natural" world that Fran suggests I do not share with him )it is quite reasonable to say "no, it did not" - no matter how many "eye-witness" accounts there are.

Frankly, ever since I discovered how many people didn't spot the gorilla, I take eye-witness accounts with a HUGE grain of salt.

I think there COULD be quite excellent historical evidence that the resurrection actually occurred. I've mentioned this before. When jesus was teleporting around Palestine and visiting with the disciples, he could have ALSO been teleporting around China and giving sermons, and North and South America giving sermons to the Indians, and telling them all about his resurrection. If reports were unearthed describing THAT it would, in fact, be quite suggestive evidence of a supernatural occurrence. If there were enough reports, with DETAILS, etc., etc., I myself would perhaps find them compelling, and would consider believing them.

So then GetMeThere, how would you know Jesus was doing all these things supernaturally, or because he had advanced capabilities that even today would be indistinguishable from magic; i.e., he was an alien with technology millions of years advanced from anything we can imagine? How sir, would you know this only by uncovering ancient written records?

They also were willing to suffer scorn, ridicule, mockery and become outcasts from their friends, families, and culture. They were also willing to throw out and leave behind they're MOST CHERSIHED beliefs and rituals and cultural IDENTITY as Jews to accept that Jesus was literally resurrected and had appeared before them... and ate with them... and walked with them... and fished with them... and talked with them... and spent 40 days with them.

I mentioned this before, but I think it bears repeating. MOST SOURCES CLAIM FAR, FAR LESS THAN FOTY DAYS.

In John, Mary sees a man "and knew not that it was Jesus" until he told them so.Then someone appears to the disciples - who do not recognise him until he shows them his wounds.Eight days later, "Jesus" appears again to Thomas and the others.Some time later, someone again appears "but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus" until he told them he was, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD ALREADY APPEARED TO THEM TWICE BEFORE. (John also mentions "many other things" this new man (who looked nothing like Jesus) did....but without any detail.)

Matthew reports only that he sees them twice, once near the tomb and once on a mountain. There is no mention of eating with him - though they do (in this account) all seem to recognise him. How long does he stay? We don't know.

In Mark he appears to 2 disciples, then soon(?) after to eleven, and then goes to heaven. Again, there seems no confusion as to what he looks like.

In Luke, two disciples walk with him and talk with him for some time, not recognising him at all. Then all of a sudden they recognise him, and he vanishes. He was clearly unrecognisable as the same man, even with prolonged contact and conversation. Shortly(?) afterwards he appeared to them all - and has to reassure them that he IS flesh and blood, despite vanishing earlier on. This is the only account where he actually eats, by the way. He then leads them out of the city, and was carried to heaven. Again, no mention of "40 days", and the impression is that it was pretty much instant, given the context.

Only in Acts do we suddenly hear about "40 days" - and, again, I hope nobody is seriously considering this a LITERAL 40 days? Consider also that this "40 day period" is disposed of in just 9 lines of text - an incredible contraction, given how outlandish this experience of a resurrected being must have been.

So we have 5 mentions of Christ after the cruxifiction. One says 40 consecutive days. Another has wo brief appearances before his "ascention", another appears to speak of events happening in a day or two at most. In many, he is unrecognicable until he actually says who he is. Only in one is he specifically recorded as eating.

To claim therefore that Jesus "ate with them... and walked with them... and fished with them... and talked with them... and spent 40 days with them" is, at best, a stretch.

Was this person observed for just a couple of occasions (Mark), for a consistent 40 days (Acts), or somewhere in between (Matthew, John, Luke)? Was he immediately recognisable (Matthew, Mark), or a complete stranger up until the point he revealed himself (Luke, John)?

John and Acts tally for time...but shed doubt on how obvious it was this was the same man they knew before. Matthew and Mark make him recognisable, but cut the length of time he was observed very short. Luke makes him unrecognisable, AND gives them only one meal and a walk to observe him.

Fran picks the "best" parts of the five accounts, to give the "he was obvious and stayed with them for ages". But why is that a more plausible bit of cherry picking than to say that John and Luke were right when they say he was unrecognisable, and Luke and Mark correct that he stayed only a short time?

So then GetMeThere, how would you know Jesus was doing all these things supernaturally, or because he had advanced capabilities that even today would be indistinguishable from magic; i.e., he was an alien with technology millions of years advanced from anything we can imagine? How sir, would you know this only by uncovering ancient written records?

If jesus had merely floated around ALL of Jerusalem for the forty days, and walked through walls in front of EVERYONE there, Roman officials and all (instead of just some smallish groups), then actual documentation of that, from MANY independent and contemporaneous sources, would surely be available. Since similar documentation of supernatural events has never been made OTHERWISE in the history of the world, it COULD BE argued somewhat persuasively that an extraordinary event HAD occurred as a basis for the reports. (that's in contrast to the small reports by INTERESTED reporters of supernatural phenomena, with which history it littered)

IDEALLY, jesus could have travelled all over the world, and visited all cultures to the extent that they ALL generated numerous independent reports all over the world. It would in fact be quite difficult to explain the existence of such reports now, in the modern age, without giving some significant credence to some sort of "supernatural" underlying event.

I think believers should somehow acknowledge (and consider) as they try to make their cases with such pathetic evidence, that jesus could EASILY have provided far better evidence, but apparently chose NOT to.

I don't think believers have a clear conception of the fact that the evidence could easily have been MUCH BETTER. If they understood that fact, then I think it might...open their eyes a bit about their process of delusion, and their dependence on faith WITHOUT evidence, in order to believe what they believe.

My problems with believers has NEVER been that they believe things without evidence; it's that they insist on asserting that there IS evidence. If they insist on that, then I would like them to offer an explanation for why there isn't ENOUGH evidence to easily and straightforwardly make a case. At minimum, they might conclude that jesus doesn't WANT THEM to try to make a case--and that would shut them up, or at least compel them to make their case on a purely faith basis.

GMT is learning from Fran: The art and skill of burying the lack of an answer in an excessive volume of words. True, he's not at the 8-page-response level, but 8 pages are not needed to obscure the dodge of HAL's question to a casual reader.

GMT is learning from Fran: The art and skill of burying the lack of an answer in an excessive volume of words. True, he's not at the 8-page-response level, but 8 pages are not needed to obscure the dodge of HAL's question to a casual reader.

I do think my comment is short enough to read in about thirty seconds, and then offer a substantive response to (instead of an insulting one).

A more direct response to HAL's last sentence is this: Simultaneous reports from all over the ancient world of a hovering, preaching, wall-penetrating, resurrected jesus would be taken in modern times to reliably describe an actual event (of some kind, at least). This is already true for ancient astronomical events and climatic events (as resulting from, say, volcanic eruptions).

Modern historians would probably give some credence to the need for an "extraordinary" explanation of some sort for the existence of such a widespread and correlated message in the ancient world--especially in the absence of any evidence for other means of worldwide communication at the time.

A supernatural explanation would be plausible (especially since that phenomenon described ITSELF as supernatural).

Well, you're still making a multi-paragraph answer to a question that HAL did not ask, while ignoring the question that he did ask. It's right there for reference, too. I don't know if this is intentional deception, or a simple failure on your part.

I'm bloody glad I'm not moderating this. Fran's latest wheeze, it seems, is to misapply the fallacies he's apparently recently learned in every possible situation. That he is apparently unable to distinguish between colourful language used for entertainment value and loaded language used in lieu of a logical argument is telling.

There isn't a facepalm image big enough for this. I'll be in the car...

Also, I noticed the following sentence (many, many times in a variety of wordings) which is quite telling to Fran's bias:

Quote from: Fran

The debate is not about whether someone can come up with a natural explanation... it has always been about coming up with a natural explanation that is MORE REASONABLE... and EXPLAINS BETTER the FMF than the Resurrection hypothesis.

What he fails to realize is that any natural explanation is more reasonable than miraculous resurrection.

Otherwise, I suggest that he needs to go back through every story of a resurrected man, god, or god-man and provide natural explanations that "better explain" those resurrections...given only the "facts" that are available in those stories themselves.

Logged

He never pays attention, he always knows the answer, and he can never tell you how he knows. We can't keep thrashing him. He is a bad example to the other pupils. There's no educating a smart boy.-– Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

They also were willing to suffer scorn, ridicule, mockery and become outcasts from their friends, families, and culture. They were also willing to throw out and leave behind they're MOST CHERSIHED beliefs and rituals and cultural IDENTITY as Jews to accept that Jesus was literally resurrected and had appeared before them... and ate with them... and walked with them... and fished with them... and talked with them... and spent 40 days with them.

I mentioned this before, but I think it bears repeating. MOST SOURCES CLAIM FAR, FAR LESS THAN FOTY DAYS.

In John, Mary sees a man "and knew not that it was Jesus" until he told them so.Then someone appears to the disciples - who do not recognise him until he shows them his wounds.Eight days later, "Jesus" appears again to Thomas and the others.Some time later, someone again appears "but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus" until he told them he was, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD ALREADY APPEARED TO THEM TWICE BEFORE. (John also mentions "many other things" this new man (who looked nothing like Jesus) did....but without any detail.)

Matthew reports only that he sees them twice, once near the tomb and once on a mountain. There is no mention of eating with him - though they do (in this account) all seem to recognise him. How long does he stay? We don't know.

In Mark he appears to 2 disciples, then soon(?) after to eleven, and then goes to heaven. Again, there seems no confusion as to what he looks like.

In Luke, two disciples walk with him and talk with him for some time, not recognising him at all. Then all of a sudden they recognise him, and he vanishes. He was clearly unrecognisable as the same man, even with prolonged contact and conversation. Shortly(?) afterwards he appeared to them all - and has to reassure them that he IS flesh and blood, despite vanishing earlier on. This is the only account where he actually eats, by the way. He then leads them out of the city, and was carried to heaven. Again, no mention of "40 days", and the impression is that it was pretty much instant, given the context.

Only in Acts do we suddenly hear about "40 days" - and, again, I hope nobody is seriously considering this a LITERAL 40 days? Consider also that this "40 day period" is disposed of in just 9 lines of text - an incredible contraction, given how outlandish this experience of a resurrected being must have been.

So we have 5 mentions of Christ after the cruxifiction. One says 40 consecutive days. Another has wo brief appearances before his "ascention", another appears to speak of events happening in a day or two at most. In many, he is unrecognicable until he actually says who he is. Only in one is he specifically recorded as eating.

To claim therefore that Jesus "ate with them... and walked with them... and fished with them... and talked with them... and spent 40 days with them" is, at best, a stretch.

Was this person observed for just a couple of occasions (Mark), for a consistent 40 days (Acts), or somewhere in between (Matthew, John, Luke)? Was he immediately recognisable (Matthew, Mark), or a complete stranger up until the point he revealed himself (Luke, John)?

John and Acts tally for time...but shed doubt on how obvious it was this was the same man they knew before. Matthew and Mark make him recognisable, but cut the length of time he was observed very short. Luke makes him unrecognisable, AND gives them only one meal and a walk to observe him.

Fran picks the "best" parts of the five accounts, to give the "he was obvious and stayed with them for ages". But why is that a more plausible bit of cherry picking than to say that John and Luke were right when they say he was unrecognisable, and Luke and Mark correct that he stayed only a short time?

Forget the 40 days then!!! I've already told Kcrady that if this is going to be a stumbling block, then forget that entire specific description which he had concerns with about the 40 days. Isn't that simple?

The bottom line is that they saw something which CONVINCED them that they saw the real Jesus after his death. That's the bottom line and that is what Fact #3 says. So if this was going to be a stumbling block, then I was very willing to stick with the language in Fact #3.

How much more gracious and accomodating and fair can I be? I wrote my response to Kcrady before I came in here out of curiousity and before you posted the above comment to my latest post to him. So why is this an issue at all? Are you looking for excuses to be confrontational and contrary and contentious?

Also, I noticed the following sentence (many, many times in a variety of wordings) which is quite telling to Fran's bias:

Quote from: Fran

The debate is not about whether someone can come up with a natural explanation... it has always been about coming up with a natural explanation that is MORE REASONABLE... and EXPLAINS BETTER the FMF than the Resurrection hypothesis.

What he fails to realize is that any natural explanation is more reasonable than miraculous resurrection.

Otherwise, I suggest that he needs to go back through every story of a resurrected man, god, or god-man and provide natural explanations that "better explain" those resurrections...given only the "facts" that are available in those stories themselves.